> In common use "reactor" and "power plant" sometimes get equated. Whoop de doo. My apologies for being slightly sloppy.
It makes no sense here and has nothing to do with being "sloppy". It's a huge difference if one reactor exists or six. It's a huge difference if there are three molten cores or if there is only one. It's much more difficult to deal with four catastrophes on a small site, than with one. It's much more difficult to get emergency backup electricity and emergency cooling for six reactors than just for one. It's much more difficult to deal with six full spent fuel pools on top of these reactors, than with just one. All six need cooling. Several of the reactor buildings were largely damaged from hydrogen explosions. With lots of debry. Lots of space is needed for contaminated water coming from the reactors. Ground water had to be controlled for all reactors. A lot more people are needed. They have only very little time to do work, due to the radiation.
This is the systematic downplaying of risks, effects, and problems on your side.
> No. Hard science.
Energy is not just "hard science". That's the typically technocratic blindness. Energy production has many more dimensions: it costs money, it needs to be insured, there is waste to deal with, there is nuclear proliferation, it is embedded in politics, it creates corruption, it is embedded in a natural environment (for example reactors need cooling), safety, security, and so on.
You are ignoring most of that. That't the typical technocratic magic thinking that the best/most complex technology will solve everything.
The "hard science" thinking, is actually arrogant low-complexity thinking of technocrats.
> The fact is that nuclear plants take around 7.5 years to build.
I thought we debunked that, given that this argument is manufactured. The last 50 years of worldwide reactor are of zero interest, when the data is unevenly distributed. Reactors 50 years ago were built totally different, with different technology (which reactor from 50 years ago is safe against a passenger airplane accident?), in a different environment, ...
We have data for the last twenty years in Europe and that looks much worse.
Good grief. I don't build nuclear power plants, and even I absolutely know the difference even if I am sometimes sloppy with my terminology Certainly the people building plants know the difference, so just stop it.
> You are ignoring most of that.
No I am not. In fact, I have dealt with that in what I wrote here. You have just chosen to ignore all these facts.
Prime example:
> > The fact is that nuclear plants take around 7.5 years to build.
> I thought we debunked that
No "we" didn't "debunk" that. Because it happens to be true, so there is nothing to debunk. It is just as true if you look at the last 50 years as it is if you look at the reactors just completed in 2022.
You just refuse to look at the actual data, and instead focus on your gut feelings and then cherry pick a few outliers that confirm your gut feelings. Not entirely coincidentally, this is the same "methodology" that's used by other science-deniers to "prove" that homeopathy works.
It doesn't. And nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to construct.
It makes no sense here and has nothing to do with being "sloppy". It's a huge difference if one reactor exists or six. It's a huge difference if there are three molten cores or if there is only one. It's much more difficult to deal with four catastrophes on a small site, than with one. It's much more difficult to get emergency backup electricity and emergency cooling for six reactors than just for one. It's much more difficult to deal with six full spent fuel pools on top of these reactors, than with just one. All six need cooling. Several of the reactor buildings were largely damaged from hydrogen explosions. With lots of debry. Lots of space is needed for contaminated water coming from the reactors. Ground water had to be controlled for all reactors. A lot more people are needed. They have only very little time to do work, due to the radiation.
This is the systematic downplaying of risks, effects, and problems on your side.
> No. Hard science.
Energy is not just "hard science". That's the typically technocratic blindness. Energy production has many more dimensions: it costs money, it needs to be insured, there is waste to deal with, there is nuclear proliferation, it is embedded in politics, it creates corruption, it is embedded in a natural environment (for example reactors need cooling), safety, security, and so on.
You are ignoring most of that. That't the typical technocratic magic thinking that the best/most complex technology will solve everything.
The "hard science" thinking, is actually arrogant low-complexity thinking of technocrats.
> The fact is that nuclear plants take around 7.5 years to build.
I thought we debunked that, given that this argument is manufactured. The last 50 years of worldwide reactor are of zero interest, when the data is unevenly distributed. Reactors 50 years ago were built totally different, with different technology (which reactor from 50 years ago is safe against a passenger airplane accident?), in a different environment, ...
We have data for the last twenty years in Europe and that looks much worse.